The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you please, there is a reason that the United States has both the popular vote and electorial votes. Were it not for electorial votes, (essentially state votes, as opposed to individual votes), the President and VP elections could potentially be controlled by the most populous and/or the largest states. This is simply a way of evening the playing field. Otherwise, states that are sparcely populated and/or very small states and the people in them could potentially have no voice in an election. People in them wouldn't even bother to vote. States like California, Texas, and New York could potentially control every election and use that leverage to their benefit and other states detriment. Why do you fail to understand this? Seems pretty simple to me.

It is our government, we choose as a whole how the nations are run.

I beg to disagree. We can only choose as a whole how OUR ngovernment is run. Neither your country or mine can control how other nations are run.

It could also not be "good enough" for any court of law btw

I know you think that the "law" makes provision for every circumstance. I don't believe this is possible. Would you have arms of governments reveal classified information? This is against the law! At least it is in the US.

Would you prefer that there be no classified information? In my humble opinion, that would make for a very dangerous world. When proving absolute guilt risks revealing information that would be detrimental to national security and the safety of citizens, I have no problem trusting my government, but then perhaps I'm not as skeptical as you.

Would you prefer that there be no classified information? In my humble opinion, that would make for a very dangerous world. When proving absolute guilt risks revealing information that would be detrimental to national security and the safety of citizens, I have no problem trusting my government, but then perhaps I'm not as skeptical as you.

Actually yes I would, and the world would be more free, not more dangerous if the principle were applied unilaterally. I do of course realise that this is a utopian ideal that will never see realisation

If you please, there is a reason that the United States has both the popular vote and electorial votes

I wasn't criticising the voting mechanism on the whole, the area is too complex and I realise that it is not what it seems on face value. All I was doing is reflecting the view of the masses (that I have encountered anyway) to Renegade, based (wrongly) on the limited facts I illustrated.

Maybe we should apportion votes in the UN and the International Court according to the population of the various countries

Touche! - However you realise that while most EU countries would be at the bottom of the pile (Lux in particular Lister ), the US would not be at the top, with most votes going to China then India.... In fact, for fun purposes, if we attributed 1 vote per hundred thousand of the populous, the voting would look a little something like this:

If the votes of the the UN were apportioned the way they are in the USA, your figures wouldn't be exactly as you say. Votes in states here are based on the number of representatives in the House and Senate. Each state, regardless of population has 2 Senators, therefore 2 votes. In addition each state has House representatives based on their population according to the Census taken every 7 years. So, at a minimum, each state has 3 electorial votes as a minimum which means that figures based on population alone can be skewed.

Complicated! I know!

Actually yes I would, and the world would be more free, not more dangerous if the principle were applied unilaterally. I do of course realise that this is a utopian ideal that will never see realisation

Originally posted by TheOriginalH ...the US would not be at the top...

Hmmm... those figures look exactly like the ones I checked before I posted. I was surprised the US was as high as it is. I knew the US would not be on top and it shouldn't be.

This illustrates the problem with relying solely on majority rule for complex issues. Often, the most "popular" choice is not the "best" choice and some mechanism needs to ensure that the "best" choice has a chance of winning, as happened in the 2000 US Presidential election.

Originally posted by Steelsun How about 1 vote for every 100,000 productive members of society. It would hurt the US a bit (we got alot of welfare bags), but it would kill countries that have more population than productivity, like china, india, mexico, and the african ones.

Interesting. Please define productive citizens.

Does being a web designer and spending 2-3 hours a day on Sitepoint make a more productive individual then a third world peasant that works 12 hours a day in the fields to feed his family? Or is productivity related to wealth?

A lot of us, myself included, aren't as "productive" as we might think.

How about 1 vote for every 100,000 productive members of society. It would hurt the US a bit (we got alot of welfare bags), but it would kill countries that have more population than productivity, like china, india, mexico, and the african ones.

Originally posted by Steelsun How about 1 vote for every 100,000 productive members of society. It would hurt the US a bit (we got alot of welfare bags), but it would kill countries that have more population than productivity, like china, india, mexico, and the african ones.

If by productivity you mean producing goods and excess food for the consumer masses, then probably. I consider leading a happy and undestructive life entirely more productive to the sustainance of the planet....and on those terms......

btw, how on EARTH did Japhi quote you before you posted....we have a psychic in the ranks!!

Actually, thinking that through again, you can only possibly be talking about the acquisition of money as productivity, not even goods. What exports does the rest of the world enjoy from the US? 25% of the planets pollution is the biggest I can think of - way to go productive dudes

The US dollar

Originally posted by TheOriginalH What exports does the rest of the world enjoy from the US?

The US dollar. More than 90% of Saudi Arabia's export earnings are from oil. So who is more guilty of pollution, the supplier of the pollution causing fossil fuels or the consumer of those fuels? I wonder if the US is as addicted to oil as Saudi Arabia is to the US dollar?

In a feeble attempt to tie this back into the original topic...

The Bin Laden family fortune (and thus Osama's fortune) is a result of the world's demand for oil. I wonder if in Saudi Arabia's never ending quest for more US dollars, they are as concerned about the environmental impacts of drilling for oil as the US was about drilling in Alaska?

Is bin Laden concerned about the environment? I wonder if he had his staff conduct an environmental impact study before 9/11?

Royal Patronage

The bin Laden construction company made billions because of contracts from the Saudi government to rebuild mosques in Mecca and Medina. About 70%-80% of Saudi state revenues come from oil. Without oil revenues, those contracts would not have been worth as much.

Re: The US dollar

The US dollar. More than 90% of Saudi Arabia's export earnings are from oil. So who is more guilty of pollution, the supplier of the pollution causing fossil fuels or the consumer of those fuels?

It's not the trade in oil that puts toxins in the air., it's the consumption.

The same way we often say that it's no guns that kill but people.

Using your rationale we should blame the gun manufacturers.
Despite the logic being fairly sound, attempts to hold gun companies responsible for gun crime have so far failed to have any siginificant success.

Using your rationale we shouldn't be blaming the cigarette companies for producing products that harm, we should blame the tobacco farmers.

As ideologically 'nice' as it sounds to be able to clean up every step of any harmful industry, it is unlikely to ever be universally endorsed.
In fact, it is quite likely that the US would be the most vociferous opponent of such a policy seeing as it has possibly the highest degree of industrial self-sufficiency coupled with the highest rate of consumption in the world.
Seeing as its involvement with so many industries goes so deep, it would likely be the country to receive the most censure under a policy of 'tracing blame' back to source.

So who is more guilty of pollution, the supplier of the pollution causing fossil fuels or the consumer of those fuels?

Without a doubt I would say- the consumer.
The oil supplier isn't the one forcing consumers to drive 'gas guzzlers'.

Re: Re: The US dollar

Originally posted by Bill Posters
Using your rationale we should blame the gun manufacturers.
Despite the logic being fairly sound, attempts to hold gun companies responsible for gun crime have so far failed to have any siginificant success.

Using your rationale we shouldn't be blaming the cigarette companies for producing products that harm, we should blame the tobacco farmers.

I agree with you, yet the logic fails as for the ways laws are when it comes to things like drugs. The US gov is constantly attacking the suppliers (both in the US and abroad) as well as the consumers.
Some day the gov might decide once and for all that guns, cigs, alcohol, free speach, etc are just too dangerous and then they will crack down on the producers, suppliers and the consumers.

Re: Re: Re: The US dollar

Originally posted by Steelsun I agree with you, yet the logic fails as for the ways laws are when it comes to things like drugs. The US gov is constantly attacking the suppliers (both in the US and abroad) as well as the consumers.

The logic remains intact as long as the starting point is whether or not an industry is legal.

If a field of poppies is grown with the *intent* to provide for the illegal narcotics market then the culpability is clear.

The Middle East supplies crude oil to the West. This is utilised by many different industries, the largest of which is almost certainly the petroleum industry.
Most, if not all, of these industries are legitimate and legal (i.e. producing a legal product using legal techniques).

The same can be said of the tobacco industry and the ore mining industries*.
(*though, if it were found that a company was mining uranium for the sole purpose of supplying radioactive source material for nuclear bombs for terrorists, then the world would no doubt go in hard.
This is unlikely as I strongly doubt that terrorists will ever have the resources and spending power to match those governments that already squabble over whatever nuclear materials comes onto the market.)

Therein lies the divide between when a government attacks users and when it attacks suppliers.

Ahhh, but some things illegal here are not illegal elsewhere, yet our fine gov still tries to kill it.

Example: Cannabis. It is perfectly legal to grow, own, possess or smoke in several countries. Yet our country's gov has decided (through the help of financially benefiting industries like medical, pharmacy, tobacco, and law enforcement) that it is a dangerous drug (and this without hard scientific data, most data shows it to be no more dangerous than alcohol or cigs).

craveat: I do not smoke pot, never have, never will. Nor ddo I smoke tobacco. The idea of purposly inhaling and absorbing the fumes of burning plant material is stupid in my mindset. I do however enjoy alcohol. And if/when they once again ban it, I will be a criminal.

Cannabis

Example: Cannabis. It is perfectly legal to grow, own, possess or smoke in several countries.

Most doctors will tell you that Cannabis is a very useful drug for people suffering from cancer and other painful illnesses.

I don't think that Cannabis should be used for recreational purposes but when politicians ban drugs that help people who are in a lot of pain it's usually just for votes. So you've got to ask yourself the question "Is democracy really working?"

Sorry, but that is one of the most back to front statements I've yet heard on this subject.

Isn't that a bit like saying that no-one's forcing farmers to grow food or raise livestock?

It's clear you have no grasp of the structure of supply and demand or even the most basic tenets of how the world functions.

Oil is drilled in order to feed the demand that already exists.
Oil is used to produce many things such as plastics , tarmac/bitumen (roads/roofs) and certain rubber products, plus untold more products neccessary to sustain civilisation 'in its current form'.

Why on earth would an industry raise its prices to a level to stop people buying their product?

Does that make sense to anyone other than daveh42?

So far, oil/petroleum companies refining crude into petrol is not illegal (it's not even recommended against by governments).

Petrol-chemical companies 'produce' what is needed to sustain the level of consumption that already exists.
Gas-guzzlers, on the other hand, consume more energy and produce more emissions than the job they do requires.

The problem with raising prices or stopping driling altogether is that those who use oil/petrol more efficiently will also have to bear the burden of the higher prices.
(i.e. *everyone* pays the price; no more plastics, no more roads (even where they are needed), no more nomore...))

The change has to come from people and governments.

I fail to understand the mental gymnastics that must have lead to the 'reasonable conclusion' that a legal industry should willingly put itself out of business *despite* the demand that still exists for its product all because another industry (car manufacturers producing gas-guzzlers) is determined to produce cars that squander that supply with unjustifiable innefficiently.

No need for personal attacks

It's clear you have no grasp of the structure of supply and demand or even the most basic tenets of how the world functions.

Originally posted by Bill Posters

Does that make sense to anyone other than daveh42?

You have absolutely no idea who I am or what I know.

Under the assumption that the merits of the argument will be discussed rather than the merits of the debater, I will respond.

Supply and demand are inextricably linked. It is impossible to have consumption of petrol without the pollution caused by drilling and distributing crude oil. The action of drilling and distribution always precedes the action of consumption.

"Vastly more pollution" is an arguable phrase. What kind of pollution and how is it measured? Is air pollution worse than water pollution? Can the magnitude and far reaching consequences of the two be logically compared?

Demand for oil has not always existed.
People lived long before there was demand for oil.
Therefore, people can live without oil.
quod erat demonstrandum

Maybe I misunderstood Economics 101. This is what I learned. Every product has a certain level of demand at every price point. When the price goes up, demand goes down. When the price goes down, demand goes up.

The west has enjoyed low oil prices for several years now. When oil prices spiked in the early 1970's, demand for alternate energy sources, like solar power, increased. When oil prices came down, demand for alternate energy sources decreased.

I will go out on a limb and predict that if oil prices rise and the prices are sustained, there will be more demand for energy efficient vehicles.

Re: No need for personal attacks

Originally posted by daveh42 Demand for oil has not always existed.
People lived long before there was demand for oil.
Therefore, people can live without oil.
quod erat demonstrandum

I'd like to see you try to live without products derived from oil.
Like it or not the world is not ready to shift wholesale into a post-oil way of life (or indeed, back to a pre-oil way of life)
Attempting to do so now would plunge us back to a primitiveness that was concurrent with the last time we lived without oil products.

True, but again it wouldn't just be the car industry that has to rethink how its products utilise that resource or how much they need to charge for their product given the higher cost of production materials.
The price of millions of products would rise if the price of oil was raised at source.

I will go out on a limb and predict that if oil prices rise and the prices are sustained, there will be more demand for energy efficient vehicles.

You can't blame the oil industry for consumers' 'choosing' to drive vehicles that use petrol innefficiently.
As you like to put it no-one is forcing them to choose gas-guzzlers over a more fuel-efficient option.

The option to drive fuel-efficient cars already exists and is a clear and available option to anyone who wishes to buy a car.

If you know of a way that the oil industry can get the oil in a way that doesn't have an environmental impact (but that doesn't raise the price of recovery beyond economic viability) then I would be sincerely interested to hear it.

Note: I'm not attempting to defend the oil companies per se, but just illustrate that I feel in this issue the errors being made by the motor companies and their customers can best be addressed by making change that affects them and not every oil-derived product on the planet.